I definitely have a different take on the Paladin. Defend Position is +4 armour per 1 AP, no will points required, plus he can fend off any melee closing on weaker ranged Knights. This means that you can leave him in a good position to ambush anything that moves in and interrupt it, in addition after he will most probably begin the next turn in melee with someone. The higher tier aegis shields are quite good, and are necessary for a "fair" comparison of the ability. The force strike with stun +2 is probably among the best. Overall I find it very effective at his job, especially if you can Defend Position near a ranged enemy consistently.
I pair him with my justicar just so he can give his allotted WP while being a tank. In turn, the justicar dishes out turns to whoever knight that needs it. Add in 2 purgators with a ton of crits, then I'm set.
Seems like a pretty useful class for Legendary difficulty, when it gets a bit grindy. I would prefer if Legendary difficulty would mean something different than just more enemies and more Hp (and less prizes)... because it feels like you are forced on just a handful of strategies to deal with that. Or maybe just 1 or 2 builds... like going for stuns and executes or something like that. I only wish to be able to take 5 Knights instead .. Having a Justicar and adding a Paladin on top would be crazy :). P.s. Bleed is a ridiculous skill on any of the high difficulties , they should remove that crap from the skill tree.... absolutely useless in a Grindy mission, zerg everywhere.. and you have option to do bleed on some enemy... lol , kind of stupid to be honest.
I think the Paladin has his place, for sure. He's really tanky, for sure, and his AOE attack is brutal. He just doesn't have the WP to use it very much. I didn't think he was necessarily better than the Justicar though, I thought the Justicar was a bit more flexible and suited my playstyle a bit better. But that's just me and how I play. I'm sure others use the Paladin to great effect, and that's totally cool. I'm not here to say it's good or bad, I just try to point out what I think are strengths and weaknesses and give ideas on how each class can be used. :) Also, yes, bleed isn't generally worth investing in, IMHO. But again, that's just me. And if you can get enough enemies bleeding all at once? Maybe that's worth it, as it will be a fair amount of cumulative damage, even though it's only a little bit to each individual enemy unit. Like if you get 5 enemies bleeding for two turns, that's 20 points of damage you don't have to do to the group, so maybe at some point that becomes worth it, I guess, if you can affect enough enemies with it and you're not going to get them all killed in one turn anyway.
All these games should take a page out of undertail and just change up legendary completely with enemies being in different places and ambushing you instead of you walking into them. Just a whole different challenge
@@Mrmaverickism maybe good idea dunno but not a fan of +++HP +++armor (on enemies) +++ extra enemies and less rewards, because you end up playing 1 hour + on some non important mission, feels like u waste your real life after a while, incredibly grindy.
I think you are wrong about "armor break" Example: enemie has 10 Health + 4 Armor. Yoou attack with 5 Damage + 4 Armor Break. In a previous video you explained, that the advantage of "armor break" (AB) as compared with "armor pierece" (AP) is, that that AB is applied to the enemies armor first ,then the regular damage is done. Therefore, in our example, the AB-attack should reduce the enemies health down to 5. But this is not true. AB-Damage is not applied before regular damage, but only on the "armor at the start of next round". Did i get tthat wrong?
Your example is exactly right, actually. Armor Break applies to armor whether it has already been damaged or not, and it happens before weapon damage is applied. Against that particular enemy with the weapon outlined, (assuming the enemy hasn't already taken any damage and assuming you're close enough that range isn't going to reduce damage), he would end up with 5 health remaining because AB would happen first and destroy all four armor points, then the weapon's 5 damage would be applied to his health, leaving him with 5 left. My point, however, is more about what happens if the Knight with armor piercing can't finish the job? If nobody else in the squad has armor piercing, your knight is going to do his 5 damage, (still leaving the enemy with 5 health), but it's going to leave that armor intact. So the other knight that doesn't have armor piercing, in order to kill that enemy, still has to deal with the 4 armor points, so you didn't really gain anything by hitting him with the armor piercing to begin with. Now if your whole squad, (or most of your squad), is set up for AP damage of some kind, this becomes less of an issue because now they can ignore the armor too, and that's fine. But for just one knight or two to have it is less useful. Think about it if facing an enemy that has something more like 10 armor and 40 health, like what you might run into in the later game. You'll get your 5 damage, (or maybe 10 or 15 even), but then the rest of your squad has to chew through that 10 armor points before they can do their damage anyway, so it didn't matter that your one knight's damage was armor piercing, because the armor had to be blown away anyway. Basically you didn't gain anything. Its not that AP is useless. I just think Armor Break is better if you can get it because it's going to help the rest of your squad not have to deal with the armor and it's still basically "free" damage, at least at first.
I definitely have a different take on the Paladin.
Defend Position is +4 armour per 1 AP, no will points required, plus he can fend off any melee closing on weaker ranged Knights. This means that you can leave him in a good position to ambush anything that moves in and interrupt it, in addition after he will most probably begin the next turn in melee with someone. The higher tier aegis shields are quite good, and are necessary for a "fair" comparison of the ability.
The force strike with stun +2 is probably among the best.
Overall I find it very effective at his job, especially if you can Defend Position near a ranged enemy consistently.
Hey, that's fair. Like I say, everyone has their own play style and people think of things I don't. Sounds like you have a good strategy going. :)
I pair him with my justicar just so he can give his allotted WP while being a tank. In turn, the justicar dishes out turns to whoever knight that needs it. Add in 2 purgators with a ton of crits, then I'm set.
I tried to build mine for stuns, but he turned out to be a melee critter, with massive damage
Have you changed your mind on bleed now that it stacks?
Seems like a pretty useful class for Legendary difficulty, when it gets a bit grindy. I would prefer if Legendary difficulty would mean something different than just more enemies and more Hp (and less prizes)... because it feels like you are forced on just a handful of strategies to deal with that. Or maybe just 1 or 2 builds... like going for stuns and executes or something like that.
I only wish to be able to take 5 Knights instead .. Having a Justicar and adding a Paladin on top would be crazy :).
P.s. Bleed is a ridiculous skill on any of the high difficulties , they should remove that crap from the skill tree.... absolutely useless in a Grindy mission, zerg everywhere.. and you have option to do bleed on some enemy... lol , kind of stupid to be honest.
I think the Paladin has his place, for sure. He's really tanky, for sure, and his AOE attack is brutal. He just doesn't have the WP to use it very much. I didn't think he was necessarily better than the Justicar though, I thought the Justicar was a bit more flexible and suited my playstyle a bit better. But that's just me and how I play. I'm sure others use the Paladin to great effect, and that's totally cool. I'm not here to say it's good or bad, I just try to point out what I think are strengths and weaknesses and give ideas on how each class can be used. :)
Also, yes, bleed isn't generally worth investing in, IMHO. But again, that's just me. And if you can get enough enemies bleeding all at once? Maybe that's worth it, as it will be a fair amount of cumulative damage, even though it's only a little bit to each individual enemy unit. Like if you get 5 enemies bleeding for two turns, that's 20 points of damage you don't have to do to the group, so maybe at some point that becomes worth it, I guess, if you can affect enough enemies with it and you're not going to get them all killed in one turn anyway.
All these games should take a page out of undertail and just change up legendary completely with enemies being in different places and ambushing you instead of you walking into them. Just a whole different challenge
@@Mrmaverickism maybe good idea dunno but not a fan of +++HP +++armor (on enemies) +++ extra enemies and less rewards, because you end up playing 1 hour + on some non important mission, feels like u waste your real life after a while, incredibly grindy.
Ah, so this is why some psycannons inflict enrage.
I think you are wrong about "armor break" Example: enemie has 10 Health + 4 Armor. Yoou attack with 5 Damage + 4 Armor Break. In a previous video you explained, that the advantage of "armor break" (AB) as compared with "armor pierece" (AP) is, that that AB is applied to the enemies armor first ,then the regular damage is done. Therefore, in our example, the AB-attack should reduce the enemies health down to 5. But this is not true. AB-Damage is not applied before regular damage, but only on the "armor at the start of next round". Did i get tthat wrong?
Your example is exactly right, actually. Armor Break applies to armor whether it has already been damaged or not, and it happens before weapon damage is applied. Against that particular enemy with the weapon outlined, (assuming the enemy hasn't already taken any damage and assuming you're close enough that range isn't going to reduce damage), he would end up with 5 health remaining because AB would happen first and destroy all four armor points, then the weapon's 5 damage would be applied to his health, leaving him with 5 left.
My point, however, is more about what happens if the Knight with armor piercing can't finish the job? If nobody else in the squad has armor piercing, your knight is going to do his 5 damage, (still leaving the enemy with 5 health), but it's going to leave that armor intact. So the other knight that doesn't have armor piercing, in order to kill that enemy, still has to deal with the 4 armor points, so you didn't really gain anything by hitting him with the armor piercing to begin with. Now if your whole squad, (or most of your squad), is set up for AP damage of some kind, this becomes less of an issue because now they can ignore the armor too, and that's fine. But for just one knight or two to have it is less useful.
Think about it if facing an enemy that has something more like 10 armor and 40 health, like what you might run into in the later game. You'll get your 5 damage, (or maybe 10 or 15 even), but then the rest of your squad has to chew through that 10 armor points before they can do their damage anyway, so it didn't matter that your one knight's damage was armor piercing, because the armor had to be blown away anyway. Basically you didn't gain anything.
Its not that AP is useless. I just think Armor Break is better if you can get it because it's going to help the rest of your squad not have to deal with the armor and it's still basically "free" damage, at least at first.